Should I really feel sorry for you because you're an URM? Honestly. You have the same brain as anybody else don't you? Or are you admitting you're not as good? AA hurts applicants because in reality it's saying "you're black/hispanic/poor/etc therefore you need this little boost in order to get in." Not to mention the fact that for every person who gets in undeservingly from AA, there is another person who deserved it more who was denied in order to make room for you.

If I were black, I would hate AA more than I already do.

I think you could make your point a bit more sharp than that. The problem with academia's brand of "affirmative action," is its use of "affirmative discrimination" as the affirmative action of choice. I believe that schools should seek students who bring diversity of experience and thought into the classroom. Few persons, for example, believe that the work experience of classmates can bring depth to discussions about issues that surround law--taxation, contracts, etc. If a school wants to spend months recruiting at every predominantly Black college in America, or wishes to have wealthy donors help out poor Black areas, or even accept a Black person over a White person with similar numbers, then in the service of diversity, that is acceptable, or at least begrudginly tolerable. All are examples of affirmative actions.

But, law schools go beyond that. Instead, they punish persons because of their race, regardless of whether the individual student is actually less privileged than even the most underprivileged Black candidate available for consideration. In short, in the affirmative action process, Black means poor and underprivileged, White means wealthy and privileged. So, as far as law schools are concerned, Colin Powell's son (not even considering the legacy admission factor) would be considered underprivileged, but a White kid from a trailer park in Appalachia is privileged. The idiocy of such statements are self-evident. When proponents of Affirmative Action start addressing this point, and opponents of it stop engaging in a condescending instruction about how it is not really good for them, change will occur, eventually.

Your theory regarding minimum wage increases is interesting--too bad it is wrong. Every time in US history minimum wage was increased, unemployment decreased. The last time miniumum wage was increased, in fact, the largest economic expanision in US history resulted. Any more Rupublican myths left to be dispelled? How about the "raise taxes raise unemployment" myth? The truth is, whether the Government or Enron spends money, it has the exact same effect on the economy--consumption. Whether the government spends the tax proceeds or Enron does, it all has the same effect, except that the Government almost ALWAYS spends/consumes, whereas corporations often times don't--other than hiring Arthur Anderson to concoct more tax evasion schemes involving Cayman Islands banks. Your economic policies should not be couched with such bad theory--just say you believe some wealthy persons are good and everyone else bad and dispense with the pretense.The notion that somehow tax policy should "reward" inventors is curious, since many of the rich persons I see, Anna Nicole Smith for one, and the countless "trust fund babies" I know, have invented nothing, but receive the same benefit. (It is the same argument as saying race should matter on an applilcation because of the effects of poverty, and then see Bill Cosby's son--hardly underprivileged--get accepted to Harvard on affirmative action gounds.)

Quote

Hey John Keynes, when prices rise for a given product, the demand for that product decreases. When the given product is labor, and an artificial price floor is implemented, unemployment occurs (some people aren't worth $6.75 per hour to an employer.) That is the LAW of supply and demand applied to the minimum wage. If this action occurs during a bull market, the unempoyment rate may still remain low, but not as low as it would have been in a free market.

why don't we see AA in the rap or hip hop music business? why dont' we have AA in the NBA or football? Those fields seem pretty dominated by african american people. shouldn't we use the same arguement you have below to improve the diversity in these fields as well?

Seriously, what would happen if there was? Then white people and other non-URMs would have another field open to them ... and what? How would society benefit?

AA in the professional field is much, much more different than in the field of sports or music. The impact that the additional of even one black lawyer has on society is so much greater, and many more times greater still is the effect that this one person is going to have on the Black community. For example, take Condi Rice. And imagine belonging to an ethnic group that has never, ever seen themselves represented in such a high level of politics. Now you have someone to look up to, to serve as an inspiration to your friends, family, and community.

Ummm.... bad example, IMO! I don't think Condi ought to serve as a role model for anyone, black or otherwise. Maybe you meant to say Barak Obama? ;-)

there are tons of amazing black people who have achieved awesome things in life. Condi IS one of them...and trust me, I am NOT a republican. Barak is of course another..what about that guy who was on the Columbia shuttle, Michael Anderson? He was amazing!! So educated, so dedicated..and yet.. unfortunately little black children find it cool to idolize morons like Dennis Rodman..shaquille o'neil..instead of people like Mr. Anderson.

the problem isn't that black people can't achieve great things..the problem is that parents are forced to work retarded hrs just to make ends meet, and the kids are left raising themselves. and when no one's there to point them in the right direction, they go to the "cool" direction and idolize movie stars and bball players. Again, I think all our problems stem from our bad welfare system, our embarassingly horribl health care system, and our miserable minimum wage! (thanks republicans)

No, I really don't think she ought to be a role model. I don't doubt that she's bright, but I just can't respect her after "That was a historical document" referring to the 8/6/01 Memo: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." and all of her television appearances making the case for war with Iraq despite any credible evidence. I also suspect that she was promoted for her loyalty more than her intelligence. And loyalty at the cost of integrity and intellectual honesty not something I respect.

That said, I'm not terrified of what will happen to our country with her as Sec. of State-- I feel reasonably confident that she will be capable at handling situations like North Korea and others well. But I woudln't have voted for her.

Oh, and while I'm sure my clash with her politics biases me, I do think that these issues cut deeper than just stances on a particular issues.

there are tons of amazing black people who have achieved awesome things in life. Condi IS one of them...and trust me, I am NOT a republican. Barak is of course another..what about that guy who was on the Columbia shuttle, Michael Anderson? He was amazing!! So educated, so dedicated..and yet.. unfortunately little black children find it cool to idolize morons like Dennis Rodman..shaquille o'neil..instead of people like Mr. Anderson.

the problem isn't that black people can't achieve great things..the problem is that parents are forced to work retarded hrs just to make ends meet, and the kids are left raising themselves. and when no one's there to point them in the right direction, they go to the "cool" direction and idolize movie stars and bball players. Again, I think all our problems stem from our bad welfare system, our embarassingly horribl health care system, and our miserable minimum wage! (thanks republicans)

I can tell you as a high school teacher that white kids aren't any better- they idolize the same people you mentioned. Can you imagine a world where kids wanted to be like Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Jr.?